ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119071. June 19, 1997]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO ANTIPONA y LEGASPI, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
The biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by the Lord with burning sulphur principally due to the sexual perversities of their people. But even the worst account of their sexual perversities did not include incestuous rapes. The case at bar involves the rape of a 12-year old daughter by her own father. At the rate this heinous crime is being perpetrated in our country, we can become the new Sodom and Gomorrah of the world.
In an Information filed on February 28, 1994, Rogelio Antipona y Legaspi was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, in Criminal Case No. 3993-V-94, with the crime of raping his own daughter, Clariza Antipona, allegedly committed as follows:
"That on or about the 24th day of January 1993, in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of CLARIZA ANTIPONA Y LEGASPI, 12 years old, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law."
Rogelio Antipona was arrested on February 25, 1994. At his arraignment on April 27, 1994, he pleaded not guilty.
At the trial, the prosecution presented Clariza Antipona, the rape victim, who testified as follows:
On the night of January 24, 1993, Clariza, her younger sisters
May and Clizza, her younger brother Ramil and their father, appellant Rogelio
Antipona, were at their residence in Libis, Canumay, Valenzuela, Metro
Manila.
Their mother, Clarita Antipona,
was in Pampanga.1 At about 10 o'clock in the evening, Clariza
and her sisters and brother were sleeping in their bedroom measuring 4 meters
in width by 3 meters in length.
Ramil
slept on the left side of a single uncushioned plywood bed measuring about 1
1/2 meters in width by 2 1/2 meters in length.
Beside him lay May and Clizza.
Clariza, on the other hand, lay on the extreme right side of the bed.2 During that time, appellant was watching the
television in the living room.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Although sleeping, Clariza felt that her shorts and panty were
being removed.4 Awakened by the movement, she sat on the bed
and saw appellant in front of her sitting on their bed, naked.
Clariza wept upon seeing him.
She failed to wake up her sisters and
brother because appellant was then forcing her to lie down.5 She could not shout for help as appellant
warned her to be silent.
Despite
Clariza's struggle, appellant succeeded in laying her down and removing her
shorts and panty.
He then kissed her
organ and inserted his tongue therein. Subsequently, appellant forcibly
inserted his organ into her private part, causing her to bleed and suffer
intense pain.
Because of the pain and
bleeding, appellant stopped his penetration and just masturbated himself.
Clariza stood up crying.
She was again threatened by appellant if she
were to inform anyone of the incident.
The following night, appellant used his finger on her private part.6chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Clariza kept mum about her ordeal even after her mother returned
from Pampanga a week after the incident.
She could not tell her defloration to her mother because she was afraid
appellant might hurt her mother.
Neither did she inform her other relatives because they were all
residing in Pampanga.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
A
year passed and on
February 14, 1994, Clariza's mother died after suffering from systematic lupus
erythromatosis.8 Clariza and her younger sisters and brother
continued to stay in their residence at Canumay, Valenzuela, under the care of
Josephine Meyasan, appellant's paramour.
Appellant, on the other hand, lived somewhere else following up the
death benefits of their mother.
Nonetheless, he visited them regularly.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On February 23, 1994, Lucita Nelmida, a close friend of Clariza's
late mother, visited their home.
She
informed Clariza of her projected trip to Kuwait. Clariza also found out that Meyasan was leaving for Bicol.
Fearful that she would be left alone with
appellant who would have the opportunity to sexually assault her again, or
worse, her younger sisters, Clariza confided to Nelmida of her rape by
appellant on the night of January 23, 1993.
The next day, Nelmida informed Bonifacio Casimiro, barangay captain of
Canumay, Valenzuela, of Clariza's rape by appellant. Casimiro, in turn, reported the incident to the police.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On February 25, 1994, appellant was apprehended by the police, and Clariza executed her sworn statement (Exhibit "A"). The next day, Clariza was physically examined by Dr. Roberto Garcia, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigations (NBI), Manila. He issued a medico-legal report (Exhibit "D") which shows the following:
"FINDINGS
GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
Height: 149.0 cm.
Weight: 71.0 lbs.
Fairly nourished, conscious, ambulatory, cooperative subject.
Breast, developing, conical, firm. Areola, light brown 2.8 cm. in diameter. Nipples, light brown, protruding, 0.4 cm. in diameter.
No extragenital physical injury noted.
GENITAL EXAMINATION:
Pubic hairs, scanty. Labia majora and minora, gaping. Fourchette, tense. Vestibular mucose, pinkish, smooth. Hymen, originally crescentic, tall and thick, with old healed, superficial lacerations at 4:00 and 6:00 o'clock positions, edges of these are rounded and non-coaptable. Hymenal orifice, measuring 1.5 cm. in diameter.
CONCLUSIONS:
1) No evident sign of any extragenital physical injury noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.
2) Old healed hymenal lacerations, present, consistent with sexual intercourse on or about January 24, 1993 and thereafter.
x x x"
In defense,
appellant
claimed that the charge against him was a fabrication by Clariza upon the
inducement of Lucita Nelmida.
He
testified that Clariza, at an early age, had been involved in several love
affairs.
He discovered from the letters
(Exhibits "2-a" to "2-j") he found in their residence that
she had four (4) boyfriends.
Allegedly,
his late wife caught her kissing a man in the basketball court in Libis,
Canumay, sometime in January 1994.
They
had a heated confrontation where he hit her several times with a piece of wood.11 This angered Clariza.
Since then, his relationship with Clariza
became strained.12 Clariza even objected to his relationship
with Josephine Meyasan.13 This was corroborated by Meyasan who
testified that when Clariza discovered their relationship, she got mad and
started going home late at night.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
To establish Nelmida's inducement, appellant testified that
Nelmida borrowed money from his deceased wife, and when he tried to collect
from her after his wife's death, she refused to pay and even got mad at him.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In deciding the case, the trial court accorded full faith and
credence to the testimony of Clariza on how she was sexually molested by her
own father.
It found her testimony
clear, positive and convincing, and dismissed appellant's claim that the charge
against him was only a fabrication upon the inducement of Lucita Nelmida.
Thus, the trial court16
convicted appellant of the crime of
rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the victim the sum of P20,000.00.
Hence, appellant appeals to this forum where he contends:
"I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND IN DISREGARDING THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.
"II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE OF THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."
The appeal has no merit.
Appellate courts have been guided by three settled principles in
deciding crimes of rape:
1)
an accusation for rape is easy to make,
difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove by the accused, though
innocent; 2)
in view of the intrinsic
nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and 3)
the evidence for the prosecution must stand
or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.17chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In the case at bar,
we
find that the prosecution evidence has established the guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt.
The efforts to
belittle the testimony of the victim Clariza cannot succeed.
The alleged improper motive of Clariza for
filing the case against appellant is insufficient to spur Clariza's act of
suing him in court.
It is highly inconceivable
that Clariza would cry rape just because she was upset with appellant's
relationship with Meyasan.
It is
likewise incredible that Clariza invented the charge to get even with appellant
for castigating her on her love life.
Such an evil mind cannot come from a twelve-year old school girl.18 A young girl's revelation that she has been
raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her
willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out
the details of an assault on her dignity by, as in this case, her own father,
cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere concoction.19 We have ruled that no woman, especially one
of tender age, would contrive a rape complaint, allow a gynecologic examination
and permit herself to be subjected to a public trial if she is not motivated
solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Appellant also failed to prove that Lucita Nelmida induced
Clariza in filing the case against him.
Allegedly, the reason is because of Nelmida's alleged outstanding debt
to his deceased wife which she refused to pay and resulted to their
misunderstanding.
The records show
that
Nelmida vehemently denied the
allegation and claimed that she had paid her debt.21 Even if the alleged misunderstanding over
the debt is true, again we cannot believe that it will move Nelmida to induce
Clariza to fabricate a charge of rape against her own father.
Since the evidence is insufficient that the
prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motive, their testimonies are
entitled to full faith and credit.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In like manner, appellant failed to prove that Clariza lost her virginity to a lover and not through his sexual assault. The letters of Clariza's boyfriends do not by any stretch of imagination prove they had any joyful intercourse. Proof cannot be substituted by speculations.
Appellant also questions the credibility of Clariza's testimony. First, appellant contends that she did not report immediately the rape incident to her mother or to her other relatives. She reported the crime after more than one year from the time of its commission. The contention deserves scant attention. We have declared in the past and we again rule that the failure of the complainant to immediately report the rape to the immediate members of her family or to the police authorities does not detract from her credibility, her hesitation being attributable to her age, the moral ascendancy of the appellant and his threats against the former.23 In this case, Clariza was less than twelve years old at the time of the rape24 and the rapist happened to be her own father. The moral ascendancy of her father and his threats are enough reasons to silence Clariza for more than a year. Second, appellant argues that the rape could not have been committed on the bed where Clariza and her younger sisters and brother were sleeping without the latter noticing the same. We also reject this argument. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Clariza was sleeping on the outermost right portion of the bed where she could be reached easily by the appellant and the bed they slept on was an uncushioned wooden bed covered with a carpet. Hence, any movement would have been negligible and insufficient to rouse the others from their sleep especially since appellant immediately withdrew his organ when Clariza felt pain and bled.25 In People v. Manuel, 236 SCRA 577 [1994], we held that:
"The crime of rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone. Rape may take only a short time to consummate, given the anxiety of its discovery, especially when committed near sleeping persons. Oblivious to the goings on, thus, the court has held that rape is not impossible even if committed in the same room while the rapist's spouse was sleeping (People v. Ignacio, June 7, 1994) or in a small room where other family members also slept. (People v. Cervantes, 222 SCRA 365)."
Time and again, we have ruled that the trial court's calibration of the credibility of witnesses must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.26 No such circumstance exists in this case. Hence, we uphold the trial court's findings on the credibility of Clariza.
We now review the award of P20,000.00 as indemnity to
Clariza.
In People v. Ramirez, G.R.
No. 97920, January 20, 1997, we awarded P50,000.00 as indemnity to the
rape victim apart from moral and exemplary damages. Consonant with said decision,
we increase the indemnity to Clariza to
P50,000.00.
In addition,
an award of moral damages for rape is justified under Article 2219(3) of the
Civil Code.
Thus, we award P10,000.00
as moral damages.
Lastly, of all
so-called heinous crimes, none perhaps more deeply provokes feelings of
outrage, detestation and disgust than incestuous rape.27 When a man perpetrates his lascivious
designs on his own direct blood relative, he descends to a level lower than
beasts.28 Such is herein appellant.
Thus, we award exemplary damages in the
amount of P30,000.00 to Clariza in order to deter other fathers with
perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own
daughters.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the judgment appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of civil indemnity in favor of
the victim is increased to P50,000.00. The amounts of P10,000.00
and P30,000.00
are
also awarded to the victim as moral damages
and exemplary damages, respectively. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, (Chairman), Romero, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ, concur.
Endnotes:
1 TSN, Clariza Antipona, May 2, 1994, pp. 4-5.
2 Id., pp. 16-17, 30, 37.
3 TSN, May, 13, 1994, pp. 38-39.
4 Supra note 1.
5 Supra note 3, pp. 33-34, 37-38.
6 Supra note 1, pp. 5-7, 18.
7 Id., pp. 18-19, 31-32, 38; Supra note 3, pp. 66-68; Rollo, p. 102.
8 Supra note 1, pp. 14-16; TSN, Rogelio Antipona, October 28, 1994, p. 4.
9 Id., pp. 26-28; Rogelio Antipona, p. 14.
10 Supra note 1, pp. 7-9; June 3, 1994, pp. 3-4; June 24, 1994, pp. 6-12.
11 Supra note 8, Rogelio Antipona, pp. 8-13.
12 Rollo, p. 62.
13 Supra note 8, Rogelio Antipona, p. 16.
14 TSN, Josephine Meyasan, December 2, 1994, pp. 4-5.
15 TSN, Rogelio Antipona, November 16, 1994, p. 9.
16 Presided by Hon. Judge Adriano R. Osorio.
17 People v. Abad, G.R. No. 114144, February 13, 1997.
18 People v. Sagaral, G.R. No. 112714-15, February 7, 1997.
19 People v. Cabillan, G.R. No. 117684, January 30, 1997.
20 Supra note 17.
21 TSN, Lucita R. Nelmida, June 24, 1994, p. 25.
22 People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658 [1996]; People v. Malunes, 247 SCRA 317 [1995].
23 Supra note 17.
24 Supra note 1, p. 12 indicating that Clariza was born on April 14, 1981.
25 Rollo, pp. 112-113.
26 People v. Vallador, 257 SCRA 515 [1996].
27 People v. Baculi, 246 SCRA 756 [1995].
28 People v. Mandap, 244 SCRA 457 [1995].